25 ms·

I believe Atlas Shrugged is generally considered to be a good/interesting book, even by people who disagree with it's conclusions.

by esrauch 14y ago

gnaritas 14y ago
That's not my impression, I think it's generally considered terrible writing with one dimentional shallow characters. It's popular for its philosophy, not its quality as a book. I immediately lose a bit of respect for anyone who claims to like that book.
- quaunaut 14y ago
  Congratulations, you're an absolutist who thinks it is valid to sum someone up by a single opinion in the sea of human complexity.
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    How is one to refine their expectations of other people's abilities, if not by updating on available evidence? Pot, kettle, incidentally. Compare parent's "I immediately lose a bit of respect" with your "you're an absolutist who [...]" The latter makes a much broader claim based on a similarly small piece of information.
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    You should work on your reading comprehension since I did nor said no such thing. Losing "a bit of respect" is not equivalent to summing someone up by a single opinion, it's not even close.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    I don't get it. Are you arguing that one should not be able to adjust their respect for a person based on that person's political leanings and/or lack of literary taste?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- wccrawford 14y ago
  I like the book. I lose respect for anyone who just dismisses it out of hand because they think that's the cool choice. But I agree that the plot and characters are shallow. The book was designed to showcase her philosophy and it does it well. I don't believe it was ever intended to be realistic, and I think it fell a little short of being entertaining a lot of the time. It was far too long. It was still far better than a lot of other fiction books I've read. What I get out of the book (which I've read 3 times) is a different look on self-worth and self-sacrifice than all the rest of society gives. I believe people would be better off if everyone acted in a rational manner to promote their own interests. (It's not actually rational to hurt others to promote yourself. In the long run, that's a losing strategy.) I also believe that this will never actually happen, and so compromises are in order. I believe that book has helped me form a better sense of my own worth, and was at least partially responsible for me leaving a job and getting a 40% raise at the next one. It's not the only factor, but it helped to be able to objectively assess my value to the company, as well as how much I value my own time. Does that mean I'm a card-carrying Objectivist who doesn't give to charity? No. It means I'm a more rational person who evaluates things a little more clearly. In fact, I actually give to charity more now than before, so the book can hardly be said to have hurt that. I do give for slightly different reasons now, though. Before, I gave because it was the thing to do. Now, I give because I want that charity to work. If I give to the Red Cross, it's because I want them to help sick or hurt people. If I give to Child's Play, it's because I want sick children to find a little bit of joy in their lives. Those things may seem obvious, but they weren't. A good example is United Way. I don't give to them. Why? Because all they do is slice off a large percent (13% apparently) and give the rest to an actual charity. Before, I had never really considered this, and just bought into their propaganda. "Of each dollar United Way collects, over 87 cents goes directly to valuable community services. " - http://www.forsythunitedway.org/faq.cfm http://www.forsythunitedway.org/faq.cfm They used to be very vocal about how much went to a real charity, pushing that statistic in front of you like it was a good thing. That is not good. That 13% could be going to a real charity, too, and actually helping people. So in the end, don't lose respect for people merely because they like something. You might not be seeing the whole story.
  - andyjohnson0 14y ago
snogglethorpe 14y ago
99% of the mentions of Atlas Shrugged I've seen use it as a target for mockery. Not just the "philosophy," but the writing style: it's practically a byword for turgid unreadability. BTW, here's my favorite comment on Atlas Shrugged, starring Bob the Angry Flower: http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif
- gjm11 14y ago
  For a much longer (but, I think, insightful and amusing) variation on that theme, see http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/393124.html http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/393124.html. Warning: not everything in the first paragraph is actually true.
- Karn 14y ago
  The punchline of that joke is completely invalid: in the novel, the tycoons do in fact grow their own food. But then again, why bother to read an actual book when you can form your opinions based on hearsay?
andrewvc 14y ago
That it's a widely read book is not controversial, but Atlas Shrugged is generally considered to be a very polarizing book, even by its proponents. It tends to bring out extreme opinions when discussed. It's not surprising given that Ayn Rand very neatly divides her characters into good and bad, and does the same with society at large. That said, many people, including Rand supporters would agree that as a work of fiction it's mostly a thin structure to put forth Rand's ideas. It could almost be a collection of essays, as the book is a collection of monologues and improbable conversations with very little time devoted to character development. That said, lots of books with big societal ideas tend to have these issues but Rand is particularly ham fisted. Reading Atlas shrugged one gets the impression that she set out to write a novel but kept meandering onto the editorial page. By way of comparison, 1984 is a book with big ideas about society that are more subtly expressed (though Orwell can get preachy as well). To reveal my own bias, I find her point of view a rather flimsy sort of egotism. It's the internal narrative of the tortured, misunderstood genius projected out to society at large. The galling thing about Rand's writings is the complete lack of understanding or compassion wrt the structural causes of inequity in society. It's a heavy handed, hateful, and facile way to view the world once put under a lens.

I believe Atlas Shrugged is generally considered to be a good/interesting book, even by people who disagree with it's conclusions.

by esrauch 14y ago

I believe Atlas Shrugged is generally considered to be a good/interesting book, even by people who disagree with it's conclusions.

gnaritas 14y ago

That's not my impression, I think it's generally considered terrible writing with one dimentional shallow characters. It's popular for its philosophy, not its quality as a book. I immediately lose a bit of respect for anyone who claims to like that book.

quaunaut 14y ago
Congratulations, you're an absolutist who thinks it is valid to sum someone up by a single opinion in the sea of human complexity.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  How is one to refine their expectations of other people's abilities, if not by updating on available evidence? Pot, kettle, incidentally. Compare parent's "I immediately lose a bit of respect" with your "you're an absolutist who [...]" The latter makes a much broader claim based on a similarly small piece of information.
- gnaritas 14y ago
  You should work on your reading comprehension since I did nor said no such thing. Losing "a bit of respect" is not equivalent to summing someone up by a single opinion, it's not even close.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  I don't get it. Are you arguing that one should not be able to adjust their respect for a person based on that person's political leanings and/or lack of literary taste?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
wccrawford 14y ago
I like the book. I lose respect for anyone who just dismisses it out of hand because they think that's the cool choice. But I agree that the plot and characters are shallow. The book was designed to showcase her philosophy and it does it well. I don't believe it was ever intended to be realistic, and I think it fell a little short of being entertaining a lot of the time. It was far too long. It was still far better than a lot of other fiction books I've read. What I get out of the book (which I've read 3 times) is a different look on self-worth and self-sacrifice than all the rest of society gives. I believe people would be better off if everyone acted in a rational manner to promote their own interests. (It's not actually rational to hurt others to promote yourself. In the long run, that's a losing strategy.) I also believe that this will never actually happen, and so compromises are in order. I believe that book has helped me form a better sense of my own worth, and was at least partially responsible for me leaving a job and getting a 40% raise at the next one. It's not the only factor, but it helped to be able to objectively assess my value to the company, as well as how much I value my own time. Does that mean I'm a card-carrying Objectivist who doesn't give to charity? No. It means I'm a more rational person who evaluates things a little more clearly. In fact, I actually give to charity more now than before, so the book can hardly be said to have hurt that. I do give for slightly different reasons now, though. Before, I gave because it was the thing to do. Now, I give because I want that charity to work. If I give to the Red Cross, it's because I want them to help sick or hurt people. If I give to Child's Play, it's because I want sick children to find a little bit of joy in their lives. Those things may seem obvious, but they weren't. A good example is United Way. I don't give to them. Why? Because all they do is slice off a large percent (13% apparently) and give the rest to an actual charity. Before, I had never really considered this, and just bought into their propaganda. "Of each dollar United Way collects, over 87 cents goes directly to valuable community services. " - http://www.forsythunitedway.org/faq.cfm http://www.forsythunitedway.org/faq.cfm They used to be very vocal about how much went to a real charity, pushing that statistic in front of you like it was a good thing. That is not good. That 13% could be going to a real charity, too, and actually helping people. So in the end, don't lose respect for people merely because they like something. You might not be seeing the whole story.
- andyjohnson0 14y ago

snogglethorpe 14y ago

99% of the mentions of Atlas Shrugged I've seen use it as a target for mockery. Not just the "philosophy," but the writing style: it's practically a byword for turgid unreadability. BTW, here's my favorite comment on Atlas Shrugged, starring Bob the Angry Flower: http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

gjm11 14y ago
For a much longer (but, I think, insightful and amusing) variation on that theme, see http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/393124.html http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/393124.html. Warning: not everything in the first paragraph is actually true.
Karn 14y ago
The punchline of that joke is completely invalid: in the novel, the tycoons do in fact grow their own food. But then again, why bother to read an actual book when you can form your opinions based on hearsay?

andrewvc 14y ago

That it's a widely read book is not controversial, but Atlas Shrugged is generally considered to be a very polarizing book, even by its proponents. It tends to bring out extreme opinions when discussed. It's not surprising given that Ayn Rand very neatly divides her characters into good and bad, and does the same with society at large. That said, many people, including Rand supporters would agree that as a work of fiction it's mostly a thin structure to put forth Rand's ideas. It could almost be a collection of essays, as the book is a collection of monologues and improbable conversations with very little time devoted to character development. That said, lots of books with big societal ideas tend to have these issues but Rand is particularly ham fisted. Reading Atlas shrugged one gets the impression that she set out to write a novel but kept meandering onto the editorial page. By way of comparison, 1984 is a book with big ideas about society that are more subtly expressed (though Orwell can get preachy as well). To reveal my own bias, I find her point of view a rather flimsy sort of egotism. It's the internal narrative of the tortured, misunderstood genius projected out to society at large. The galling thing about Rand's writings is the complete lack of understanding or compassion wrt the structural causes of inequity in society. It's a heavy handed, hateful, and facile way to view the world once put under a lens.